Stop Sizewell C’s Response to Regulated Asset Base Licence Consultation
Stop Sizewell C’s Response to Regulated Asset Base Licence Consultation,
Modifications to Sizewell C Limited’s electricity generation licence.
It is entirely credible that the scenario of Hinkley Point C – where predicted
overnight costs have almost doubled, and completion time has slipped by 5
or 6 years since construction began – may be replicated at Sizewell C, with
the obvious conclusion that consumers would pay more, and for longer.
DESNZ should therefore revise the figures in the RAB impact assessment taking
this new information and inflation into account, and publish it to show how
bills would be impacted. We wish to highlight the conclusions of the
Science Information and Technology Committee which said of Sizewell C in
July 2023: “A headline lower cost than Hinkley Point C is not justified
if the value of the risk is too great”
Stop Sizewell C 29th Jan 2024
Julian Assange judge previously acted for MI6
The judge set to rule on the Assange extradition case was previously paid to represent the interests of MI6 and the Ministry of Defence – whose activities WikiLeaks has exposed.
MARK CURTIS AND JOHN MCEVOY, 19 FEBRUARY 2024
One of the two High Court judges who will rule on Julian Assange’s bid to stop his extradition to the US represented the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the Ministry of Defence, Declassified has found.
Justice Jeremy Johnson has also been a specially vetted barrister, cleared by the UK authorities to access top secret information.
Johnson will sit with Dame Victoria Sharp, his senior judge, to decide the fate of the WikiLeaks co-founder. If extradited, Assange faces a maximum sentence of 175 years.
His persecution by the US authorities has been at the behest of Washington’s intelligence and security services, with whom the UK has deep relations.
His persecution by the US authorities has been at the behest of Washington’s intelligence and security services, with whom the UK has deep relations.
Assange’s journalistic career has been marked by exposing the dirty secrets of the US and UK national security establishments. He now faces a judge who has acted for, and received security clearance from, some of those same state agencies.
As with previous judges who have ruled on Assange’s case, this raises concerns about institutional conflicts of interest.
Exactly how much Johnson has been paid for his work for government departments is not clear. Records show he was paid twice by the Government Legal Department for his services in 2018. The sum was over £55,000.
Briefed by MI6
Justice Johnson became a deputy High Court judge in 2016 and a full judge in 2019. His biography states he has been “often acting in cases involving the police and government departments”.
As a barrister, in 2007 he represented MI6 as an observer during the inquests into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed.
Johnson worked alongside Robin Tam QC, previously described by legal directories as a barrister who “does an enormous amount of often sensitive work” for the UK government…………………………………………………….
Defending the ministry
Johnson has also represented the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) on at least two occasions.
In 2013, he acted for the department during the high-profile Al-Sweady inquiry, which looked into allegations that “British soldiers torture and unlawfully killed Iraqi prisoners” in 2004.
The MoD’s lawyers said the Iraqi allegations were a “product of lies” and that those making the claims “were guilty of a criminal conspiracy”.
Johnson argued there was “compelling and extensive and independent forensic evidence” to refute the case. The five-year inquiry, which cost around £25m, exonerated the British troops.
Johnson also acted for the MoD in 2011, in an appeal case against Shaun Wood, a Royal Air Force (RAF) serviceman. ………………………….
‘Highest security clearance’
Johnson was appointed by the Attorney General to be a “special advocate” in around 2007, Declassified understands. These are specially vetted barristers who act for the purpose of hearing secret evidence in a closed court.
Special advocates “must undergo and obtain Developed Vetting (the highest level of HM Government security clearance) prior to their appointment”, government guidance states.
Developed Vetting is required for individuals having “frequent and uncontrolled access to TOP SECRET assets or require any access to TOP SECRET codeword material”. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.declassifieduk.org/julian-assange-judge-previously-acted-for-mi6/
Buried trial verdict confirms false-flag Maidan massacre in Ukraine
Oligarchic and far-right leaders and organizations, including neo-Nazis, who were involved in this false-flag mass killing to seize power in Ukraine, were hailed by Western and Ukrainian politicians, media, and even many academics as heroes and defenders of democrac
Ukrainian-Canadian political scientist and professor Ivan Katchanovski on the hidden origins of the Russia-Ukraine war
Ivan Katchanovski / February 20, 2024
A nearly one-million-word verdict from Ukraine’s Maidan massacre trial has recently confirmed that many Maidan activists were shot not by members of Ukraine’s Berkut special police force or other law enforcement personnel but by snipers in the far-right-controlled Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan-controlled locations a decade ago today. The verdict, handed down on October 18, 2023, states specifically that this hotel was controlled by Maidan activists and that an armed, far-right-linked Maidan group was in the hotel and fired from it. It also confirms that there was no Russian involvement in the massacre and that no massacre orders were issued by then President Viktor Yanukovych or his ministers. The verdict concludes that the Euromaidan was at the time of this massacre not a peaceful protest but a “rebellion” that involved the killing of Berkut and other police personnel.
This is an important official acknowledgement, not only because the violence represented the most significant case of mass murder, violent crime, and human rights violations in independent Ukraine to that point, but also because of the subsequent conflicts to which it has led or contributed. Notably, the massacre precipitated the violent overthrow of Yanukovych and his government, who were falsely blamed for carrying it out. It then spiralled into the Russian annexation of Crimea, the subsequent civil war and Russian interventions in the Donbas, and the conflicts between Ukraine and Russia, and between Russia and the Western powers, which Russia dramatically escalated with its illegal invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
There has been, however, a blackout of the verdict’s confirmation of the Maidan snipers in the Ukrainian media and, with a few notable exceptions, the Western mainstream media. Moreover, in an op-ed piece in The Bulwark, an online neoconservative magazine, author Cathy Young misrepresented the verdict, falsely claiming that it had found the Berkut police responsible for the deaths of 40 of the 48 protesters killed. Young also denied and openly whitewashed the existence of Maidan snipers and the far-right’s involvement in the Maidan massacre, labelling it a “conspiracy theory” despite clear and overwhelming evidence to the contrary in the verdict, the trial, and the investigation, as well as in academic studies of the event. Such deliberate omission and misrepresentation has been perpetrated in spite of the fact that the verdict’s Ukrainian text, as well as automatic English translation of the relevant excerpts, are publicly available, and in spite viral tweets describing and quoting from it.
The verdict by the Ukrainian Sviatoshyn District Court in Kyiv, along with the findings of the investigation by the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office (GPU), comprise a de facto official admission—on the part of Ukraine’s justice system no less, which cannot be called independent—that on February 20, 2014, at least 10 of the 48 Maidan activists killed, and 115 of the 172 wounded, were shot not by Berkut or other law enforcement personnel firing from government-controlled areas but by Maidan snipers operating in Maidan-controlled locations. The government investigation admitted that one dead protester and 77 wounded Maidan activists were not shot from Berkut-controlled sectors, and therefore did not charge anyone for those crimes. Of course, it stands to reason that if these activists were not shot by government personnel, they must have been shot by the Maidan snipers.
The verdict, issued by the Kyiv court shortly before the tenth anniversary of the Euromaidan, shows that the Maidan massacre narrative that has been propagated by governments, the mainstream media, and a variety of info-warriors in the West and in Ukraine is false. The proponents of this narrative have called the Maidan a peaceful protest and presented the massacre of the Maidan protesters as a crime perpetrated by government snipers on the orders of Yanukovych and his government. The prosecution, the victims’ lawyers, the New York Times and other mainstream media (with some notable exceptions), Wikipedia, self-proclaimed experts, and info-warriors denied the presence of snipers in the Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan-controlled buildings, the shooting of Maidan protesters by these snipers, and the far-right’s involvement in this mass killing, and claimed instead that such ideas comprise a “conspiracy theory” and “Russian disinformation.” The exceptions included reports by ARD, BBC, The Nation, Jacobin, Court House News, Ekathimerini (Greece), Jyllands-Posten (Denmark), Weltwoche (Switzerland), Il Fatto Quotidiano (Italy), and El Nacional (Spain)—in addition to Canadian Dimension, which has published some of my other writing on this subject………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Wikipedia editors who deliberately and literally misrepresent and whitewash the false-flag Maidan massacre also systematically misrepresent and whitewash the far-right in Ukraine and its involvement in the Holocaust. These editors include Wise2, also known as Prohoshka, who has also propagated “scientific anti-Semitism” and whitewashed the involvement of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) in the 1941 Lviv pogroms during the Nazi occupation of Ukraine, justifying it on the basis of “Jewish collaboration.” Another Wikipedia editor, who uses the handle My Very Best Wishes, brazenly whitewashed the fact that monuments in Canada to the Galicia Division and Roman Shukhevych are in fact commemorating a division of the Waffen-SS and a Nazi collaborator. A scholarly article by a noted historian at the University of Ottawa also listed My Very Best Wishes as one of the editors involved in an intentional distortion of Wikipedia’s history of the Holocaust in Poland. This editor also recently wrote, falsely, on Wikipedia’s biographical page on Elon Musk about the latter’s supposed “involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.” Various publications and websites have identified Wise2/Prohoshka as a far-right Svoboda activist named Svyatoslav Gut, and My Very Best Wishes as Andrei Lomize, a biophysics researcher at the University of Michigan.
Fabricated evidence against Berkut, no massacre order by Yanukovych
The trial verdict also confirms the absence of evidence for any order by Yanukovych or his government to massacre the Maidan protesters. This is a crucial official acknowledgment, since Yanukovych and his government were overthrown on the basis of accusations of having ordered the massacre. Joe Biden, then US vice-president, wrote in his memoirs that during the Maidan massacre, he called Yanukovych and told him that “it was over; time for him to call off his gunmen and walk away,” that he “had lost the confidence of the Ukrainian people … and he was going to be judged harshly by history if he kept killing them.”
In addition to acquitting two Berkut policemen for killing and wounding the Maidan activists, the verdict states that all five accused Berkut officers had been blamed, baselessly, for killing 13 Maidan protesters and wounding another 29. This is further evidence of trumped-up, politically motivated charges.
The decision to convict in absentia three Berkut officers, who had been transferred by Zelensky to the Donbas separatists in a 2019 exchange, is a political one. The charging of these officers for the murders of 31 of 48 Maidan protesters killed, and the attempted murders of another 44 of 80, was based on a single, fabricated forensic examination, not to mention posited on the notion of collective responsibility. This single forensic examination of bullets, undertaken five years after the massacre, reversed the results of some 40 earlier forensic bullet examinations, including a computer-based examination which showed that bullets taken from the bodies of killed Maidan protesters did not match the Berkut Kalashnikov rifles.
The three Berkut policemen were convicted in absentia based on this single, fabricated forensic examination as well as on their presumed collective responsibility for the murders of 31 protesters and the attempted murders of 44 more. On the same basis and contrary to all other evidence, a Berkut commander was also convicted of the manslaughter of four protesters and the wounding of another eight, for supposedly having ordered his officers to fire indiscriminately during the evacuation of internal troops by the Berkut company, and its subsequent retreat after one Berkut officer was killed and another wounded……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The verdict means that a decade since this crucial massacre—one of the most documented cases of mass killing in history—nobody is in prison for the murders and attempted murders of Maidan activists and police officers, or for shooting at foreign journalists. The silence on the part of those who deny the false-flag Maidan massacre, who call these claims a “conspiracy theory” and thereby whitewash the mass murderers of the far-right, is both deafening and revealing.
Media blackout and whitewash
All Ukrainian media reports omitted the verdict’s confirmations of the false-flag massacre. The Western media (with a few notable exceptions) also omitted this information. Moreover, writer Cathy Young, mentioned above, deliberately misrepresented the Maidan massacre trial verdict, branding the revelations about Maidan snipers operating in the Hotel Ukraina a “conspiracy theory” and claiming, falsely, that the verdict did not indicate that Maidan protesters were shot from the hotel or other Maidan-controlled locations, and that it did not disprove involvement by Russian snipers. ………………………………………………………………………………
Oligarchic and far-right leaders and organizations, including neo-Nazis, who were involved in this false-flag mass killing to seize power in Ukraine, were hailed by Western and Ukrainian politicians, media, and even many academics as heroes and defenders of democracy. They were invited for government visits and talks at universities, including in Canada. Government leaders, journalists, investigators, Maidan lawyers, NGO activists, partisan researchers, and info-warriors who branded the reports of the Maidan snipers and their false-flag massacre a conspiracy theory and propaganda were hailed as defenders of justice and human rights, and given grants by Western governments, foundations, and universities, including even a Nobel Peace Prize.
It is doubtful that any of the above parties will suffer any consequences for such fraud and whitewashing of mass murderers, in particular those of the far-right. Ukraine and Ukrainians continue to suffer the consequences of this massacre, which has spiralled into major conflicts, including the ongoing and devastating Russia-Ukraine war, which is also a dangerous, unwinnable proxy war undertaken by the West against Russia.
Ivan Katchanovski teaches at the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. He is the author of Cleft Countries: Regional Political Divisions and Cultures in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Moldova and co-author of Historical Dictionary of Ukraine (Second Edition) and The Paradox of American Unionism: Why Americans Like Unions More Than Canadians Do, But Join Much Less. https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/buried-trial-verdict-confirms-false-flag-maidan-massacre-in-ukraine-2024
TODAY. How the USA betrays and disdains its allies – the case of Julian Assange.
Right now, USA leaders are bewailing and admiring Alexei Navalny – the courageous Russian who stood up to Putin, and paid the ultimate price for publicly exposing the government’s crimes .
The hypocrisy of Joe Biden and the rest of these phony U.S. “patriots” – too cowardly to face up to the truth, – to accept that their great “exceptional” nation could have done some wrong things! Like the Russian government, you get rid of, you kill, the person who exposed your wrongdoing.
Only the Russians do it quickly, without finesse.
The American government constructs an elaborate legal justification, and, with the sycophantic support of the British government, a long-drawn out procedure of torture – over many years – punishing the truth-speaker – the Australian citizen Julian Assange – in the name of “justice”.
Julian Assange is not an American citizen. He was not an official of the USA government. He did not hack into U.S. government computers to discover classified documents. Yet Assange is charged with this computer misuse, and espionage of classified documents! With violating 17 counts of the 1917 Espionage Act, with a potential sentence of 170 years!
What Assange did was to do what journalists do – publish information given to him by a source (- Chelsea Manning). The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel also published this information. Why are their editors and journalists not also being charged with espionage?
Assange revealed crimes – massacres of civilians, torture, assassinations, the list of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and the conditions they were subjected to, as well as the Rules of Engagement in Iraq, helicopter pilots who gunned down two Reuters journalists and 10 other civilians and severely injured two children. These perpetrators have never been charged. with anything.
Apart from the intrinsic injustice of the claims against Assange, there has been a whole series of illegal and very questionable actions against him. Some examples – the surveillance of Assange and his lawyers by a Spanish firm, while he was in the Ecuadorian Embassy, Ecuador’s rescinding Julian’s asylum status allowing police in, the UK court’s acceptance of the claim that Assange is “not a journalist”. A key witness admitted to fabricating the accusations against him. The CIA made plans for kidnapping and assassinating him.
Julian was convicted of breaching his bail conditions. The punishment? Almost 5 years in solitary confinement in maximum security Belmarsh prison. Belmarsh is for Category A prisoners, those who “pose the most threat to the public, the police or national security” and stand accused of terrorism, murder, or sexual violence.
Article 4 of the Extradition Treaty between USA and UK prohibits extradition for political offenses. Why has this been ignored in the drive to send Assange to trial in the USA?
It is likely that the British court will continue the British kow-towing to America.
As for Australia – the Australian Parliament, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, actually now have put their heads above the parapet, and called on the USA to release Assange. A bit of courage on their part – not seen since the days of Gough Whitlam (who was severely punished for attempting to stand up to the USA.)
But it matters little – what Australia wants for its citizen Assange. Australia has signed up for the nuclear submarine boondoggle, and for plastering U.S. military bases around the nation, and for being ready to join in attacking China whenever asked to.
Right now, Australia IS making some feeble attempts to separate itself from Joe Biden’s fealty to Israel, and even from castigating China. These will be disregarded by the mighty USA.
“Friendship’ with the USA is entirely one way, and Assange awaits his ultimate persecution.
An Open Letter from Editors and Publishers: Publishing is Not a Crime
The following is a letter from The New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais and DER SPIEGEL urging the U.S. government to end its prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing secrets.
By The New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais and DER SPIEGEL, https://scheerpost.com/2024/02/18/an-open-letter-from-editors-and-publishers-publishing-is-not-a-crime/
Twelve years ago, on November 28th 2010, our five international media outlets – The New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais and DER SPIEGEL – published a series of revelations in cooperation with Wikileaks that made the headlines around the globe.
“Cable gate”, a set of 251,000 confidential cables from the US State Department disclosed corruption, diplomatic scandals and spy affairs on an international scale.
In the words of The New York Times, the documents told “the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money”. Even now in 2022, journalists and historians continue to publish new revelations, using the unique trove of documents.
For Julian Assange, publisher of Wikileaks, the publication of “Cable gate” and several other related leaks had the most severe consequences. On April 11th, 2019, Assange was arrested in London on a US arrest warrant, and has now been held for three and a half years in a high security British prison usually used for terrorists and members of organized crime groups. He faces extradition to the US and a sentence of up to 175 years in an American maximum security prison.
This group of editors and publishers, all of whom had worked with Assange, felt the need to publicly criticize his conduct in 2011 when unredacted copies of the cables were released, and some of us are concerned about the allegations in the indictment that he attempted to aid in computer intrusion of a classified database. But we come together now to express our grave concerns about the continued prosecution of Julian Assange for obtaining and publishing classified materials.
The Obama-Biden Administration, in office during the Wikileaks publication in 2010, refrained from indicting Assange, explaining that they would have had to indict journalists from major news outlets too. Their position placed a premium on press freedom, despite its uncomfortable consequences. Under Donald Trump however, the position changed. The DOJ relied on an old law, the Espionage Act of 1917 (designed to prosecute potential spies during World War 1), which has never been used to prosecute a publisher or broadcaster.
This indictment sets a dangerous precedent, and threatens to undermine America’s First Amendment and the freedom of the press.
Holding governments accountable is part of the core mission of a free press in a democracy.
Obtaining and disclosing sensitive information when necessary in the public interest is a core part of the daily work of journalists. If that work is criminalised, our public discourse and our democracies are made significantly weaker.
Twelve years after the publication of “Cable gate”, it is time for the U.S. government to end its prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing secrets.
Publishing is not a crime.
The editors and publishers of:
- The New York Times
- The Guardian
- Le Monde
- DER SPIEGEL
- El Pais
Germany and nuclear weapons: A difficult history
Volker Witting | Rina Goldenberg, 02/17/2024February 17, 2024
Donald Trump’s suggestion the US will no longer apply NATO’s principle of collective defense should he become president again has sent shockwaves through Europe.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is annoyed by the current debate about European nuclear weapons.“There is no reason to discuss the nuclear umbrella now,” he told public broadcaster ARD.
Ever since Donald Trump suggested that, as US president, he would not provide military assistance to NATO countries if they invested less than 2% of their GDP in their defense, German politicians have been discussing whether French and British nuclear weapons would suffice as a protective shield or whether Europe needs new nuclear weapons.
“The debate about European nuclear weapons is a very German debate that we don’t see in any other country,” political scientist Karl-Heinz Kamp from the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) told DW — especially not in Eastern Europe, where there is a constant perceived threat from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
Germany has a special history: Germany was “seen as an intrinsically aggressive country, that had started two world wars and could not be trusted with nuclear weapons,” said Kamp.
Germany-based nukes during the Cold War
In 1954, not long after the end of World War II, the first chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Konrad Adenauer, signed an agreement renouncing the production of its own nuclear, biological or chemical weapons on its territory. In return, the US included West Germany in its nuclear deterrence policy against the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact.
In 1958, the German parliament, the Bundestag, approved the deployment of US nuclear weapons, despite some pacifist protests among the population. In 1960, 1,500 US nuclear warheads were stored in West Germany and a further 1,500 in the rest of Western Europe.
The nuclear weapons were also available to the Bundeswehr for training and use in the “case of defense.” “There was never any discussion about Germany acquiring its own nuclear weapons,” said Kamp.
The West German and European peace movements grew. The protest against the “NATO Dual-Track Decision” in 1982 saw over a million people in West Germany take to the streets in protest against the planned stationing of new US medium-range missiles in the country.
Nevertheless, on November 22, 1983, a center-right majority in the Bundestag approved the stationing of the missiles in US bases shortly thereafter. At the time, the Greens were newly represented in the Bundestag and appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court against the storing and deployment of nuclear missiles on West German territory. This bid was rejected as unfounded in December 1984.
During the Cold War, East Germany, the communist German Democratic Republic (GDR), was part of the Warsaw Pact military alliance, and from 1958, nuclear missiles and warheads were stationed in Soviet military bases on GDR territory. Some were withdrawn in 1988 as part of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty between the US and the Soviet Union.
After German reunification and the withdrawal of the Soviet military, the territory of the former GDR officially became free of nuclear weapons in 1991.
Post-Cold War Germany
After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the division between East and West Germany, the German position was once again cemented in the so-called “Two-Plus-Four Treaty”: No nuclear weapons! On September 12, 1990, the four victorious powers of World War II (the US, the Soviet Union, France and UK) stipulated that Germany East and West should be reunified and renounce nuclear weapons.
Kamp says this was hardly surprising, because “a German nuclear power would be something that would cause horror. For historical reasons alone.”
The US government withdrew many of these nuclear warheads after the collapse of the Soviet Union, though an estimated 180 US nuclear weapons are still stored in Europe, in Italy, Turkey, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany.
Experts believe that 20 US nuclear warheads are currently stored in the town of Büchel in Rhineland-Palatinate, western Germany. “But the decision-making authority over these weapons lies solely with the American president,” explained Kamp.
Any debate about Germany acquiring its own nuclear weapons is completely unrealistic, says political scientist Peter Rudolf from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. Nuclear bombs need to be stored so that they are not easy targets, he told the Frankfurter Allgemeine daily.
“Survivable nuclear weapons would have to be on nuclear-powered submarines that can remain underwater for a very long time, he said, pointing to equipment the Bundeswehr does not have. “So there are so many problems standing in the way of a German nuclear bomb that it has no relevance to current crises,” Rudolf concluded.
“Those who are now talking about a European defense dimension are not talking about German nuclear weapons, because Germany is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has made several binding commitments under international law to renounce the possession of weapons of mass destruction — including nuclear weapons,” agreed Kamp.
Defense Minister Pistorius, meanwhile, who made headlines not so long ago saying Germany should get “war-ready”, is now keen to brush the whole debate aside: He told ARD that “the majority of those in charge in the United States of America know exactly what they have in their transatlantic partners in Europe, what they have in NATO.”
And Kamp agrees: “Trump may be able to damage NATO considerably, but he cannot destroy it. You can’t destroy decades of transatlantic relations in one term of office.”
Edited by Ben Knight and Peter Hille
UK could contribute to nuclear shield if Trump wins, suggests German minister
Comments draw Britain into debate about European security without US providing bulk of Nato’s nuclear deterrent
Patrick Wintour, Guardian, 19 Feb 24,
The UK could contribute to a new European nuclear shield if Donald Trump becomes US president again, a senior German minister has suggested, drawing British politicians into the debate about how Europe’s security could be bolstered in the event of the Republican frontrunner winning in November.
Questions over a European nuclear deterrence have intensified after Trump’s remarks on Saturday that he would not defend any Nato member that failed to spend 2% of its gross domestic product on defence – and would even encourage Russia to continue attacking.
European leaders have interpreted the comments as a warning that the alliance’s largely US nuclear shield can no longer be taken for granted if Trump returns to the White House. On Tuesday, Christian Lindner, the German finance minister and the leader of the Free Democratic party, called on politicians to consider an alternative model that could include British and French nuclear weapons……………………………………………………………..
The central issue in the nuclear debate is less whether Britain or France would put their nuclear weapons at the disposal of the EU, but whether the two countries could agree to put them at the service of a deterrence strategy for Nato’s European alliance area.
Although France keeps its nuclear deterrent outside the Nato command structure, Macron has offered to cooperate with Europe on nuclear defence. In 2020, he called for a “strategic dialogue” on “the role of France’s nuclear deterrent in [Europe’s] collective security”. Germany never took up that offer……………………………………………………………………………………..
The UK has said its nuclear weapons would be available for use at the request of Nato’s supreme allied commander Europe, the alliance’s most senior uniformed officer, and that they would only be used “in extreme circumstances of self-defence including the defence of our Nato allies”.
This offer, however, was made in the context of a US nuclear presence in Europe.
The Labour party has promised to intensify defence cooperation with Europe, including a commitment by the shadow defence secretary, John Healey, to reach an agreement with Germany within the first six months of taking office. But this modest pledge had nothing to do with the sharing of Britain’s nuclear deterrent. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/uk-europe-nuclear-shield-donald-trump-germany-nato-deterrent
For Biden, ending Israel’s mass murder in Gaza is a ‘non-starter’
As Palestinians face mass starvation and new ethnic cleansing in Rafah, the White House rejects even token humanitarian gestures.
AARON MATÉ, FEB 20, 2024
At the White House last week, President Biden claimed to have concerns about Israeli plans for a ground invasion of Rafah, the southern Gaza area where more than one million Palestinians have fled. In the process, he committed a gaffe that revealed his actual stance.
“Our military operation in Rafah,” Biden began, before correcting himself. “Their — the major military operation in Rafah should not proceed without a credible plan… for ensuring the safety and support of more than one million people sheltering there. They need to be protected.”
Although unintentional, Biden was accurate to refer to an Israeli military operation in Gaza in the possessive form. Every Israeli atrocity in Gaza is committed with US support. Accordingly, within 24 hours, the White House made clear that despite Biden’s words of caution, only Israel’s mass murder campaign will remain protected.
According to three US officials, the Biden administration “is not planning to punish Israel if it launches a military campaign in Rafah without ensuring civilian safety,” Politico reports. Therefore, “no reprimand plans are in the works, meaning Israeli forces could enter the city and harm civilians without facing American consequences.” In another likely sign that Biden supports an Israeli assault, its allied regime in Egypt – a US client state — is now building an 8-square-mile walled enclosure that would cage fleeing refugees on its side of the Rafah border.
Biden’s spokespeople have also relayed that Israel has his green light to harm Rafah’s civilians.
“We’re going to continue to support Israel,” John Kirby said at the White House. “And we’re going to continue to make sure they have the tools and the capabilities to do that.” Asked directly if the US would punish Israel if it attacked Rafah without the Biden-demanded “credible plan” for civilian safety, Kirby responded: “I’m not going to get into a hypothetical game.”
To supply Israel with the proper “tools,” the US is rushing a new shipment of at least 1,000 bombs and related munitions. According to US intelligence officials, Israel has used about half the 21,000 bombs supplied by the US since the Oct. 7th attack. Israel’s remaining stockpile would be enough for 19 more weeks — but just days if war breaks out with Hezbollah on the northern border.
Israel’s dependence on US weaponry gives the White House instrumental leverage to impose conditions on its conduct – including demanding an end to the Gaza assault. But instead of using that influence, this latest transfer is part of “a broader effort by the Biden administration to speed the flow of weapons to Israel,” the Wall Street Journal observes…………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://www.aaronmate.net/p/for-biden-ending-israels-mass-murder?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=100118&post_id=141822384&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&utm_medium=email
The odds of China using nuclear war to resolve the Taiwan issue
By John F. CopperFeb 20, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/the-odds-of-china-using-nuclear-war-to-resolve-the-taiwan-issue-u-s-expert-versus-taiwan-experts/
Recently the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a thinktank in Washington, DC, did a survey asking U.S. and Taiwan Experts if China might use nuclear weapons in a conflict with or over Taiwan. The results were astonishing to most who read the study. Almost half of U.S. experts reported they thought China would. Only one quarter that number of Taiwan experts, 11 percent, so opined.
Different histories and variances in views of the world order explain this.
The US view
The United States was born out of war in the late 1700s. Americans call it a revolutionary war or a war of independence. It was the latter. (Social classes did not change.)
Growing from a small country on the East Coast to a two-ocean nation in a century was built on wars with the indigenous people (American Indians) that were reduced from 100 percent of the population to 2 percent today. The wars were vicious, including the use of germ weapons and deliberately starving the enemy. Essentially wars of annihilation.
In the late 1800s the Indians were defeated marked by a victory (some called a massacre) in the Battle of Wounded Knee. Thenceforth the U.S. became an external expansionist power: incorporating Hawaii, defeating Spain to colonise the Philippines, and taking some other Pacific Islands.
World War I and II enhanced America’s world power status: from being an important nation to being a preeminent world power (superpower). In 1991, the U.S. defeated the Soviet Union, the only other superpower, with an arms race that America won—to become the world’s sole superpower.
Four years ago, former President Jimmy Carter noted America had been at peace only 16 of the last 242 years and concluded the U.S. was the most warlike nation in history. By contrast, China had not been at war in the last 40 years.
Meanwhile, after World War II the U.S. built a new world order employing its superior national power and its view of what the world should be –a world of global trade and economic growth and dragooned democracy. It worked well for a while.
But America became overstretched from its role as a military giant, and in some ways soft or at least tired of its global responsibilities. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it was not ready to lead a unipolar world.
More important, it faced a growing challenge. Mao, China’s great leader, died in 1976 and two years later Deng Xiaoping reconstructed China, getting rid of Mao’s radical communism and replacing it with free-market capitalism, trade and a system that built on China’s education tradition. China boomed economically.
It even grew during the world recession of 2008 and the subsequent almost slowest U.S. recovery in recent history. China became the number one nation in the world economically based on purchasing power. It led the word in steel production and other measures of big power status. In made the UN’s poverty eradication project work by helping developing countries grow with its formidable Belt and Road Initiative that was heading toward spending a trillion dollars compared to America’s biggest, the Marshall Plan (costing a bit over 100 billion in today’s dollars). Meanwhile, China passed the U.S. in registering patents and publishing academic articles while building modern airports and fast trains (more than the rest of the world combined while American had none).
President Trump met the China challenge with a make America great again policy. He sought to bring important industries back and restore U.S. capitalism. However, he faced virtually impossible hurdles to do this: an inflated and powerful government bureaucracy, too many lawyers that impeded business, horribly expensive penal and welfare systems, high taxes and a burdensome debt. Plus, the intelligence agencies and the federal police (FBI), the mainstream media, and American academe all opposed him while the Democratic Party that was bigger than his party had more money.
President Biden sought to destroy Trump’s America. As a globalist he advocated the idea of the US as an exceptional country and a superpower. America was to be a nation organising a bloc of democracies facing off against the China-led authoritarian nations. But this failed. America’s democracy appeared to many to have evolved into partisan rule by the deep state. Europeans did not want to be led by the U.S. Europe and Japan did not wish to end important economic ties with China. The Biden administration engaged in a financial and technology war with China, which hurt the U.S. more than China. The developing countries of the world continued to admire China for its aid and investments.
Good luck competing with China…
Meanwhile, pundits were taken by an idea expressed in the ancient book by Thucydides, The Peloponnesian Wars, that competition and eventually war between a status quo power (Sparta) and a rising power (Athens) was the model for most major wars after that. The relationship between America and China fit the model well. Thus, war was coming.
Provoking a war by demonising China as an expansionist power and an abuser of human rights meant that the U.S. should to go to war soon—before China, experiencing a renaissance and rising in national power, might defeat the U.S. that was experiencing decline.
The Taiwanese view
Taiwan has a very different history and view of the world from America. It early on grew up in isolation. Then it was exposed to the world outside via trade handled by its merchants, pirates, and outsiders. Chinese migrated to Taiwan and subdued the indigenous population reducing it to 2 percent of residents as happened in America; but this did not make Taiwan a world power.
Instead, Taiwan was ruled by Westerners (the Netherlands) for a brief time that improved its economy and more. For two centuries it was then ruled by China that did not have much interest in Taiwan and eventually abandoned it. Forthwith, Taiwan became a colony of Japan, during which time it saw economic modernisation without political choice or democracy.
Then the United States defeated Japan in war and returned Taiwan to China according to wartime agreements made at Potsdam and Tehran. Taiwan was not given any choice in the matter.
But China was at war with itself–a civil war between Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists and Mao Tse-tung’s Communists. Four years later Chiang lost and retreated to Taiwan to regroup. Again, Taiwan had no voice.
Owing to the Korean War the United States viewed Mao as a confederate of the Soviet Union and therefore an enemy. America gave aid and protection to Chiang’s Republic of China based on Taiwan. But the U.S. did not want a war with China allied with the Soviet Union and the result was a stalemate.
Chiang shifted his attention to Taiwan’s economic development and succeeded beyond almost anyone’s expectations. Its gross national product grew at a pace that far exceeded Western countries or Japan at their halcyon growth days.
Peace made this possible. Economic growth produced prosperity. Prosperity begat a middle class. A middle class serve to create political change and democracy.
Taiwan became a model for economic development and political change. Something similar happened in China under Deng: a booming economy and some political liberalisation. China and Taiwan linked up with trade and investments such that it made for mutual understanding and the avoidance of war, the same conditions that made the European Community work.
Strategically, Taiwan aligned with the United States against China in the Cold War. Like before it had no choice. But it avoided developing a nuclear weapon believing Chinese leaders when they said they would not use its nukes against Taiwan as they would not consider killing their own people.
Taiwan believed this because China did not engage in a nuclear arms race with America even though in the last two or three decades it could afford to do so. China sought to deal with Taiwan with its economic prowess, though it pulled its punches in using pressure and Taiwan knew it.
Taiwan’s residents’ national identity made it favour its sovereignty and separation from China or independence. Yet they knew this was contingent on America’s protection, regarding which they had some doubts.
Washington’s policy was that there was one China and Taiwan was part of China. President Biden restated this in the presence of world leaders at an APEC meeting in San Francisco. Feelings grew in Taiwan that America regarded it a pawn. The Biden administration forced Taiwan to invest in producing top-of-the line computer chips in Arizona, thus disabling what President Tsai called Taiwan’s “silicon shield.” She and Taiwan’s population could also see that China was on the rise; the U.S. was not.
Opinion polls in Taiwan reflected this. While residents’ identity favoured Taiwan and they picked independence over unification, they fancied the status quo more, and perceived Taiwan would reunify with China in the long run. Most of all they wanted peace. War, even if the U.S. kept its promises and fought for Taiwan, would still mean Taiwan would suffer grievously.
Finally, they preferred China’s world order that was founded on financial and technological power, not America’s system which relied on military might that Henry Kissinger, among others, opined was in quick decay.
Hence, it is understandable why U.S. pundits see China attacking Taiwan even with nuclear weapons much more likely than Taiwan scholars.
Hinkley Point C Nuclear could kill 22 BILLION fish in the Severn estuary
the huge cost to our precious natural world has been hidden behind the low-carbon story.
Somerset Apple, 17 Feb 24, Dave Phillips
A POWERFUL grouping of environmentalists, wildlife and fishing organisations have got together to condemn EDF’s plan to backtrack on promises made to install technology to prevent millions of fish and other marine life from being destroyed by the powerful cooling intakes for Hinkley Point C (HPC) nuclear power station that’s currently under construction.
When operational, HPC will suck in an Olympic-sized swimming pool of water every 12 seconds for the next 70 years from the Severn Estuary in an area inhabited by fish. Experts say it could wipe out 22 BILLION fish during its operational lifetime.
The Dillington Vision agreed between EDF, Somerset County Council and the UK Government, set out the vision for HPC which included the commitment to “recognise the value of the natural environment”. The original design of HPC included three measures to protect the marine environment, specifically fish populations, from the impacts of the power station.
This all relates to EDF’s consultation about removing the Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD), one of three ways to reduce fish killed at the new power station.
The proposed three methods were designed to work together:
- Low-velocity side entry at the tunnel heads designed to allow fish to swim away and not be sucked into the cooling tunnels.
- Fish recovery and return system.
- Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD) using sound that deter fish from swimming too close to the intake pipes in the first place.
In 2019, EDF proposed to remove the Acoustic Fish Deterrent as being difficult to install and maintain. This went to public inquiry with environmental groups (eNGOs) collectively giving evidence to support the Environment Agency (EA) in questioning EDF’s proposal.
In 2021, the UK Secretary of State for the Environment found in favour of the EA that the AFD should remain. EDF is now proposing not to implement the AFD and is instead proposing a package of measures claimed to compensate for the loss of fish in the estuary.
The eNGO group comprises:
- Angling Trust
- Avon Wildlife Trust
- Bristol Channel Federation of Sea Anglers
- Burnham Boat Owners
- Blue Marine Foundation
- Bristol Avon Rivers Trust
- Fish Legal
- Institute of Fisheries Management
- RSPB
- Severn Rivers Trust
- Somerset Wildlife Trust
- Wildlife Trusts Wales
- WWT, the charity for wetlands and wildlifeWhilst the eNGO group accepts that habitat restoration of saltmarsh, oysterbeds, kelp forest and river work could make an important and positive impact on the estuary, there is not enough evidence that it will address the huge losses of fish life that the cooling intakes will cause.
- They say: “Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (HPC) has been promoted as green and renewable because of the need to move away from fossil fuels. However, the huge cost to our precious natural world has been hidden behind the low-carbon story.
“Europe’s largest construction project on the edge of the Severn Estuary will have a significant impact on marine and migratory fish including already vulnerable Atlantic salmon, twaite shad and European eel over its lifetime.
“The impacts of this will be felt widely, affecting Welsh rivers, River Severn, the Bristol Avon, Somerset Levels and across the Celtic Sea. Life in the whole of the Severn Estuary and Bristol Channel could be dramatically affected over the next few decades according to a group of environmental organisations (eNGO’s)……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Objectors are calling for:
- More evidence of the potential impact of the AFD removal to determine the amount of compensation needed, including more consultation with independent groups of experts.
- Agreement on comprehensive long-term monitoring of the impact of the water intakes and the compensatory habitat as it develops throughout the lifetime of the power station.
- A commitment to respond to the results of the evidence gathering and monitoring with additional compensatory habitat, the fitting of fish deterrents on the intakes and/or reduction in intake water volumes as supplementary cooling techniques are more affordable or legislated.
Citizens Advice says Sizewell C costs should not be paid with energy bill hikes
Independent advice provider calls for clarity on funding and says project may offer ‘poor value for money’
Guardian, Alex Lawson 19 Feb 24
Ministers have been urged by Citizens Advice to protect consumers from a hike in household energy bills to pay for the proposed Sizewell C power station, amid international tensions over the rising costs of nuclear projects.
The UK’s largest independent advice provider has raised concerns that the project in Suffolk may offer “poor value for money” and called for greater clarity on its funding, in a letter to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Estimates of the cost of Sizewell C vary wildy – from £20bn to £44bn – and a process to find international investors to join the UK government and France’s EDF is ongoing.
Last month, the owner of Sizewell C’s sister project, EDF’s Hinkley Point C in Somerset, said it would be delayed to 2031 and cost up to £35bn, blaming inflation, Covid and Brexit. This could reach £47.9bn under its worst-case scenario. On Friday, EDF said it had taken a €12.9bn hit on the project.
EDF, which is wholly owned by the French government, is on the hook for cost overruns at Hinkley. French officials have lobbied the UK government to share the burden of the extra costs after its Chinese partner, CGN, was removed from the Sizewell C project over security fears.
However, Sizewell C has a different funding structure to Hinkley, exposing households to potential overruns.
Sizewell C Ltd, the entity behind the project, updated its electricity licence to allow a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model to be implemented.
RAB financing models, which have been used in the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel and Heathrow Terminal 5, are designed to encourage investment by offering a guaranteed income for investors during the construction phase of a large project and bring down financing costs, with the cost added to bills.
In a response to the consultation on the licence update, Citizens Advice chief energy economist Richard Hall said: “By providing investors with a relatively guaranteed income stream, and one that commences during the construction phase, it can be convincingly argued that applying the RAB model to new nuclear projects could reduce the cost of capital that consumers have to pay.
“Our concern has been, and remains, that consumers are not simply exposed to the cost of capital, but also the volume of capital that needs to be employed. If the volume of capital required balloons, the project may offer consumers poor value for money even if it is cheaply financed.”
He added: “Looking at new nuclear projects in general, and the type envisaged at Sizewell C in particular, the scope for material cost and time overruns is very significant. Consumers need to be protected from those risks. They have no way to manage them, and are reliant on the [energy] department to take steps to ensure that they are not on the hook for cost or time overruns.”
Hall also raised concerns over proposals for advertising and publicity costs included in the licence consultation. “Billpayers should not be paying for the Sizewell C sales pitch,” he said.
The latest estimates of the cost of Sizewell C, conducted by University of Greenwich Business School and seen by the Guardian, forecast that it would cost £38.4bn and be complete in 2039. Its analysis suggests that the consumer surcharge to fund it would rise from £4.07 a year in the first year of the project, to £27.82 in year 15, costing households an extra £239.21 in total during its construction.
Alison Downes of the Stop Sizewell C campaign said: “The government emphasise that Hinkley Point C is EDF’s risk and responsibility, but when Sizewell C overspends and overruns – as it inevitably will – future ministers will have to explain why it was considered acceptable to put its construction risk on to consumers and taxpayers. Why has the Hinkley fiasco not taught the government that a RAB-funded Sizewell is a bad idea?”…………………………. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/19/citizens-advice-says-sizewell-c-costs-should-not-be-paid-with-energy-bill-hikes
Touring South Korea to support opposition to US space warfare plans
Organizing notes, Bruce Gagnon, 19 Feb 24
https://space4peace.blogspot.com/2024/02/touring-south-korea-to-support.html
I’ve just landed in South Korea (ROK) where I will be on a speaking tour around the country for the next 10 days.
I was invited to come and talk about Washington’s push to entrap South Korea into the Pentagon’s space technology strategy aimed at North Korea, China and Russia.
Already at the US Osan AFB in South Korea the Space Force has set up operations with the ROK client state.
The US has pushed the right-wing Seoul government to massively expand their spending on military space tech. With the current US national debt now at $35 trillion, Washington can’t afford to pay for its expensive and ambitious plans to ‘control and dominate’ space. Thus the #1 job of the Pentagon and State Department is to get the allies to help pay for the space warfare infrastructure.
Currently the ROK government is building space R & D centers, satellite production facilities, new airfields likely to test hypersonic missiles and expanding ‘missile defense’ deployment sites.
One key goal the US has is to use ROK satellite production and launch facilities to hoist mini-satellites into Lower Earth Orbit (LEO) to help fill up the already crowded orbits before China and Russia can get there. Eyes and ears in LEO give a nation a decisive advantage in full scale war making.
Late last year the US hosted a big space industry conference in the capital city of Seoul in order to cement this expanding space warfare relationship. Dangling the promise of ‘lots of high-tech jobs’ the US has drawn the ROK into the trap.
The problem for the ROK (like all of Washington’s allies participating in this space warfare operation) is that they will have little to no input into how and when this Star Wars program will be used. Even though ROK will help pay for it (and host many of the bases) the Pentagon will remain in charge of the ‘tip of the spear’. Once becoming a colony of the US war machine, a nation loses their right to be full partners.
One sad thing about all of this is how Jeju Island (just off the southern tip of the Korean peninsula) is becoming further militarized via this new space tech operation.
Late last year the US hosted a big space industry conference in the capital city of Seoul in order to cement this expanding space warfare relationship. Dangling the promise of ‘lots of high-tech jobs’ the US has drawn the ROK into the trap.
The problem for the ROK (like all of Washington’s allies participating in this space warfare operation) is that they will have little to no input into how and when this Star Wars program will be used. Even though ROK will help pay for it (and host many of the bases) the Pentagon will remain in charge of the ‘tip of the spear’. Once becoming a colony of the US war machine, a nation loses their right to be full partners.
One sad thing about all of this is how Jeju Island (just off the southern tip of the Korean peninsula) is becoming further militarized via this new space tech operation.
Christopher Nolan Recognizes Those Who Have ‘Fought Long and Hard to Reduce the Number of Nuclear Weapons’ After Winning First-Ever BAFTA for ‘Oppenheimer’
Variety, By Alex Ritman, K.J. Yossman 19 Feb 24
Christopher Nolan has won the BAFTA Award for best director for “Oppenheimer.”
In his acceptance speech, he said that while his film ended on a “dramatically necessary note of despair,” he wanted to spotlight the “individuals and organizations who have fought long and hard to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world.”
“In accepting this I do just want to acknowledge their efforts and point out they show the necessity and potential of efforts for peace,” he added……………….. more https://variety.com/2024/film/awards/christopher-nolan-baftas-speech-oppenheimer-nuclear-weapons-1235914793/
After years of avoiding extradition, Julian Assange’s appeal is likely his last chance. Here’s how it might unfold (and how we got here)
On February 20 and 21, Julian Assange will ask the High Court of England and Wales to reverse a decision from June last year allowing the United Kingdom to extradite him to the United States.
There he faces multiple counts of computer misuse and espionage stemming from his work with WikiLeaks, publishing sensitive US government documents provided by Chelsea Manning. The US government has repeatedly claimed that Assange’s actions risked its national security.
This is the final avenue of appeal in the UK, although Stella Assange, Julian’s wife, has indicated he would seek an order from the European Court of Human Rights if he loses the application for appeal. The European Court, an international court that hears cases under the European Convention on Human Rights, can issue orders that are binding on convention member states. In 2022, an order from the court stopped the UK sending asylum seekers to Rwanda pending a full review of the relevant legislation.
The extradition process has been running for nearly five years. Over such a long time, it’s easy to lose track of the sequence of events that led to this. Here’s how we got here, and what might happen next.
Years-long extradition attempt
From 2012 until May 2019, Assange resided in the Ecuadorian embassy in London after breaching bail on unrelated charges. While he remained in the embassy, the police could not arrest him without the permission of the Ecuadorian government.
In 2019, Ecuador allowed Assange’s arrest. He was then convicted of breaching bail conditions, and imprisoned in Belmarsh Prison, where he’s remained during the extradition proceedings. Shortly after his arrest, the United States laid charges against Assange and requested his extradition from the United Kingdom.
Assange immediately challenged the extradition request. After delays due to COVID, in January 2021, the District Court decided the extradition could not proceed because it would be “oppressive” to Assange.
The ruling was based on the likely conditions that Assange would face in an American prison and the high risk that he would attempt suicide. The court rejected all other arguments against extradition.
The American government appealed the District Court decision. It provided assurances on prison conditions for Assange to overcome the finding that the extradition would be oppressive. Those assurances led to the High Court overturning the order stopping extradition. Then the Supreme Court (the UK’s top court) refused Assange’s request to appeal that ruling.
The extradition request then passed to the home secretary, who approved it. Assange appealed the home secretary’s decision, which a single judge of the High Court rejected in June 2023.
This appeal is against that most recent ruling and will be heard by a two-judge bench. These judges will only decide whether Assange has grounds for appeal. If they decide in his favour, the court will schedule a full hearing of the merits of the appeal. That hearing would come at the cost of further delay in the resolution of his case.
Growing political support
Parallel to the legal challenges, Assange’s supporters have led a political campaign to stop the prosecution and the extradition. One goal of the campaign has been to persuade the Australian government to argue Assange’s case with the American government.
Cross-party support from individual parliamentarians has steadily grown, led by independent MP Andrew Wilkie. Over the past two years, the government, including the foreign minister and the prime minister, have made stronger and clearer statements that the prosecution should end.
On February 14, Wilkie proposed a motion in support of Assange, seconded by Labor MP Josh Wilson. The house was asked to “underline the importance of the UK and USA bringing the matter to a close so that Mr Assange can return home to his family in Australia.” It was passed.
In addition, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus confirmed he had recently raised the Assange prosecution with his American counterpart, who has the authority to end it.
What will Assange’s team argue?
For the High Court appeal, it is expected Assange’s legal team will once again argue the extradition would be oppressive and that the American assurances are inadequate. A recent statement by Alice Edwards, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, supports their argument that extradition could lead to treatment “amounting to torture or other forms of ill-treatment or punishment”. She rejected the adequacy of American assurances, saying:
They are not legally binding, are limited in their scope, and the person the assurances aim to protect may have no recourse if they are violated.
The argument that extradition would be oppressive remains the strongest ground for appeal. However, it is likely Assange’s lawyers will also repeat some of the arguments which were unsuccessful in the District Court proceedings.
One argument is that the charges against Assange, particularly the espionage charges, are political offences. The United States–United Kingdom extradition treaty does not allow either state to extradite for political offences.
Assange is also likely to re-run the argument that his leaks of classified documents were exercises of his right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. To date, the European Court of Human Rights has never found that an extradition request violates freedom of expression. For the High Court to do so would be an innovative ruling.
The High Court will hear two days of legal argument and might not give its judgement immediately, but it will probably be delivered soon after the hearing. Whatever the decision, Assange’s supporters will continue their political campaign, supported by the Australian government, to stop the prosecution.
1 This Month
petition to oppose the rapid increase of space-military industry threatening Jeju Island and the region.
[Petition by April 19th (KST)] Stop the joint military-Hanwha Systems-Jeju Provincial Government Sea Launch!
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (194)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 